There was palpable ignorance & lethargy exhibited by the public authority officials in creating greater awareness in respect of the matters like the present RTI application - CIC: Upload FAQs regarding the duties, responsibilities & the functions of NAAC

19 Mar, 2018

O R D E R

FACTS:

The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 05 points regarding whether there was any NAAC Accredited University in Tamil Nadu named “Manonmanian Sundarnar University”, if yes, details of accreditations of the university i.e., UGC, JAS-ANJ, IAF, ISO, AICTE, DEC, NAAC and also duration of the accreditation, whether the university had power to appoint any study centre, to certify, enrol and admit to student in Gujarat and issues related thereto. The CPIO vide its letter dated 21.06.2016 returned the DD on the ground that it was drawn in favour of CPIO, NAAC, Bangalore but it should have been in favour of “The Director, NAAC, Bangalore”.

Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The order of the FAA, if any, is not available on the record of the Commission.

HEARING:

Facts emerging during the hearing:

The following were present:

Appellant: Mr. Murani Nilesh Mansurali through VC;

Respondent: Mr. Pramod Sharma, Advocate, NAAC in person;

The Appellant reiterated the contents of his RTI application and stated that complete and satisfactory information had not been received by him. He highlighted the issue of misuse of NAAC logo by the said university and submitted that it was arbitrarily being misused by several such bodies thereby duping a large number of students by such fraudulent means. It was pointed out that the NAAC website does not contain issues relevant to the larger public interest as that raised by him in his RTI application. Furthermore, he desired that action should be initiated against the officials of such universities for malafidely misusing the logo of NAAC. Responding to the issues raised by the Appellant, the Respondent informed the Commission that with regard to point 3 (1), a suitable reply had been furnished to the Appellant. For other points, since the matter related to the university, they could not provide any further details. On being queried if the said RTI application was forwarded under Section 6 (3) of the RTI Act 2005 to the said university, the Respondent feigned ignorance and volunteered to initiate further necessary action expeditiously. On being questioned about the FAQs being uploaded on the NAAC website in respect of the public interest matters being raised by the citizens about the duties, responsibilities and the functions of NAAC, the Respondent remained unprepared to address any of these issues.

Furthermore, High Court of Delhi in the decision of General Manager Finance Air India Ltd & Anr v. Virender Singh, LPA No. 205/2012, Decided On: 16.07.2012 had held as under:

“8. The RTI Act, as per its preamble was enacted to enable the citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. An informed citizenry and transparency of information have been spelled out as vital to democracy and to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed. The said legislation is undoubtedly one of the most significant enactments of independent India and a landmark in governance. The spirit of the legislation is further evident from various provisions thereof which require public authorities to:

A. Publish inter alia: i) the procedure followed in the decision making process; ii) the norms for the discharge of its functions; iii) rules, regulations, instructions manuals and records used by its employees in discharging of its functions; iv) the manner and execution of subsidy programmes including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes; v) the particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorizations granted. [see Section 4(1) (b), (iii), (iv), (v); (xii) & (xiii)].

As observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the decision of R.B.I. and Ors. V. Jayantilal N. Mistry and Ors, Transferred Case (Civil) No. 91 of 2015 (Arising out of Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 707 of 2012 decided on 16.12.2015

“The ideal of ‘Government by the people’ makes it necessary that people have access to information on matters of public concern. The free flow of information about affairs of Government paves way for debate in public policy and fosters accountability in Government. It creates a condition for ‘open governance’ which is a foundation of democracy.”

The Commission observed that several pertinent issues relating to duties, responsibilities and the functions of NAAC were raised by the Appellant which ought to be uploaded on its website in the form of FAQs for ready reference of the public at large. The Commission also observed that there is complete negligence and laxity in the public authority in dealing with the RTI applications. It is abundantly clear that such matters are being ignored and set aside without application of mind which reflects disrespect towards the RTI Act, 2005 itself. The Commission expressed its displeasure on the casual and callous approach adopted by the respondent in responding to the RTI application. It was felt that the conduct of respondent was against the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005 Page 4 of 4 which was enacted to ensure greater transparency and effective access to the information.

DECISION

Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission noted that there was palpable ignorance and lethargy exhibited by the public authority officials in creating greater awareness and sensitization of the larger public in respect of the matters of relevance like the present RTI application so that necessary remedial action could be initiated forthwith by the concerned authorities.

The Commission therefore advises the Director, NAAC to initiate action to upload FAQs regarding the duties, responsibilities and the functions of NAAC with a focus on the queries raised in the RTI application and similar such issues.

The Commission also directs the Respondent (CPIO) to transfer the RTI application on points 2, 3, 4 and 5 to the concerned University u/s 6 (3) of the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 05 days from the date of receipt of this order.

Moreover, the Commission also instructs the Respondent Public Authority to convene periodic conferences/seminars to sensitize, familiarize and educate the concerned officials about the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 for effective discharge of its duties and responsibilities.